Tombstone epitaph., 1887-10-01

posed to assert title under their patent, to file the adverse claim provided by the statute, and in the ensuing judicial pro- ceedings to show the superiority of thelr right to it. Having had serious doubts at least, of the mineral character of the land at the time of the application for patent, as shown by the papers before me, and having failed to file the adverse claim authorized by law they certainly were neglectful of their own interests.
 Furthermore, they had it in thelr power to enter protest against the issue of the patent for any of the causes now set up as grounds for asking its cancellation, and in fact they did protest on several grounds. As to the alleged defects in stalking and the amount of work done, a protest by them would merely have had the effect of delaying the issue of patent until such defects were cured. As to the non.mineral character of the land, proof of it would have barred the issue of patent; but they withdrew or failed to prosecute the charge that no discovery of mineral had been made, because, as the papers before me indicate, they hoped that discovery would be made; and herein again they were negligent in protecting their interests in the land.
 Since the tract in controversy is cov- cred by the townsite patent, if the min eral patent were set aside for the causes alleged, would re-vest in the holders under the townsite patent, and not in the United States. In the case of United States vs. Minor, (II4 U. S., 223) the court said that it might become a grave question whether the government could be permitted to use its name to set aside it's own patent for the benefit of rival claimant, when it had no interest in the subject matter of the suit. In the case of United States vs. Hughes (II Howard ss2, 66S,) where it was urged that the United States had no interest in the land in controversy, it was held that such a suit might be instituted when, by req son of the inadvertence of the Land De. partment and the fraud of the claimant, the Government was unable to fulfill its engagements and give title to the prior and righttul claimant But in this case there is no indication that the prior claimant had been negligent in acquiring or maintaining his rights; whereas, in the case before me, such negligence is mani fest; and think that, for that reason, the claimants under the townsite patent are in no position to ask the Government to interpose in their behalf. Having neg lected to avail themselves of the two methods of preventing issue of patent authorized by the statute, they ought not now, think, to be heard when they ask tne use OI tuc HdiiiC Oi tnC 1oVCiuiiCht to avoid the effect of such negligence.
 For the foregoing reasons, it is my judgment that the petition should be denied, and I so recommend.
 Very Respectfully,
 L.Q. C, LAMAR,
 Secretary.
 In the case of the Mountain Maid patent, Attorney General Garland has given his opinion that the Mountain Maid patent is valid title, and has authorized proceedings to be taken to vacate and annul the same on the ground that there was valid protest pending against the same, undisposed of at the date of the issuance of said mineral patent, and that the same could not there. fore rightfully issue until such protest was disposed of. An appeal will be taken. we understand, to the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Mountain Maid case.